Happily the Supreme Court quickly rejected Trump’s latest far fetched attempt to thwart the will of the voters.

Lost in the relief felt by reasonably minded people is the sad fact that two Justices, Samuel Alioto and Clarence Thomas, would have taken the case.

1991 – Then Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden and then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas

Excerpted from New York Times 12.10.2020

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an audacious lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the presidential election results in four battleground states captured by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The court, in a brief unsigned order, said Texas lacked standing to pursue the case, saying it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

The move, coupled with a one-sentence order on Tuesday turning away a similar request from Pennsylvania Republicans, signaled that the court has refused to be drawn into President Trump’s losing campaign to overturn the results of the election last month.

There will continue to be scattered litigation brush fires around the nation from Mr. Trump’s allies, but as a practical matter the Supreme Court’s action puts an end to any prospect that Mr. Trump will win in court what he lost at the polls.

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed
as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

The Mad Maxdome

Dr. Strangelove flight of the week.

Back in the USSR. Boys with toys, again.

Excerpted from Popular Mechanics 12.10.2020

• Thieves broke into a Russian military Il-80 transport plane and made off with more than three dozen pieces of communications equipment.
• The Il-80 is specially designed to carry Russia’s president and general staff during a nuclear war, keeping them safe.
• The jet is also designed to allow Russia’s leadership to maintain secure communications with its nuclear forces.

A Russian military aircraft designed to allow the country’s leadership to survive and fight a nuclear war has been crippled, the victim of a particularly brazen burglary. Thieves stole 39 pieces of communications equipment from the Ilyushin Il-80 aircraft, nicknamed “Maxdome” by NATO.

The incident took place at the Beriev Taganrog Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex, outside the Russian city of Rostov. Inspectors noticed an open hatch leading inside the plane and soon discovered the equipment was missing.

The Ilyushin Il-80 strategic airborne command post is a modified Il-86 widebody passenger jet converted for military use. Four airplanes were converted, with one reserved for use by the Russian president. The remaining three planes belong to Special Air Group Rossiya and are meant to carry members of the Russian General Staff.

The incident took place at the Beriev Taganrog Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex, outside the Russian city of Rostov. Inspectors noticed an open hatch leading inside the plane and soon discovered the equipment was missing.

The Ilyushin Il-80 strategic airborne command post is a modified Il-86 widebody passenger jet converted for military use. Four airplanes were converted, with one reserved for use by the Russian president. The remaining three planes belong to Special Air Group Rossiya and are meant to carry members of the Russian General Staff.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34921072/thieves-break-into-russia-doomsday-plane/

Germans have gained weight during the nine month Pandemic. Forced to remain sheltered and being unable to exercise has caused a spike in weight gain amongst the food loving Germans.

Beer, bratwurst and bread consumption has spiked amongst the well endowed citizens of Deutschland.

Should a survey be taken amongst the terribly obese American public the findings would undoubtedly be worse.

Deutsche Welle 12.9.2020

A year of lockdowns and working from home appear to be taking their toll on Germans’ waistlines. A new study on health in the country notes an increase in weight gain since the coronavirus pandemic began.

Germans have gained weight since the country went into lockdown in the spring. That’s according to a new study on the state of health in the country published on Wednesday by Germany’s disease agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI).

The report outlines how measures introduced to curb the spread of the deadly coronavirus have also had negative effects on the health of the German populace.

Lubeck, Germany Chocolate Shop

Photo – Lee Heidhues

The study found that from April to August, Germans gained an average of around 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds), citing an increase in unhealthy eating, among other changes in daily behavior as a result of pandemic-related restrictions.

The RKI also noted that fewer people visited their doctors, both general practitioners and specialists, during the first lockdown in the spring. Germans have apparently “increasingly abstained from using medical services,” the study’s authors wrote. German hospitals also postponed many elective procedures in order to maintain space for a potential surge in COVID-19 patients.

Some 23,000 people in Germany aged 15 and older were surveyed via telephone from April 2019 to September of this year.

The study did not confirm initial fears that the pandemic or measures to contain it would lead to a rise in psychological disorders.

“No differences were found among the general population in terms of depression symptoms or the support received and provided in the household,” the studies authors said.

However, the RKI emphasized that there was “no unified picture” of the overall health situation in Germany and that further study was necessary.

There was also a decrease in the number of people smoking tobacco, but whether that is tied to the pandemic was unclear.

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-germans-gaining-weight-during-pandemic/a-55880622

We were living on 38^th Avenue in San Francisco.

This is the song I heard when I turned on NPR  Morning Edition the morning after John Lennon was murdered.

I had a flu and went to bed around 7PM the night before and slept through the night.

I awoke to this…

I knew what happened the moment I heard the song at 7AM and then Bob Edwards came on the air…

All the photos are from the Time Magazine issue I have kept the past 40 years.

It was only one sentence and the Supreme Court Order was a unanimous 9-0. 

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice
Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

Trump’s latest absurd bid to thwart of the 81,000,000 Americans who voted for the Biden-Harris team has been totally smashed.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will take office in 43 days.  January 20, 2021 at noon.

Wall Street Journal 12.8.2020

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a last-ditch Republican request to block President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania, dealing another blow to supporters of President Trump who have contested the Nov. 3 election across the country.

The court, in a routine one-sentence order, denied a bid by a Pennsylvania congressman and other Republicans who were pressing an emergency challenge to the state’s vote-by-mail system, enacted by its legislature in 2019.

The group of nihilistic deplorables who descended on the home of Michigan’s Secretary of State are the absolute worst of the incorrigibles.

It is people like this band of fools that foisted Trump on America.

This country is now reaping the whirlwind of putting such a dangerous, befuddled clown into the White House.

Happily, in 43 days Trump will slither away into the swamp of exile.

Excerpted from Detroit Free Press 12.6.2020

A couple of dozen protesters gathered in front of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s home Saturday night shouting through megaphones against the certification of the election and demanding a forensic audit.

A portion of the demonstration was broadcast live on Facebook around 9:30 p.m. The protesters are seen walking up to Benson’s Detroit home, some wearing President Donald Trump paraphernalia and carrying American flags.

“We are over here in the fricking dead of night, man,” Genevieve Peters, who posted the live video, said as she walked to the house. “We are letting her know that we’re not taking this bullshit election, we are not standing down, we are not giving up you are not going to take this election from a man that has earned it completely 100% by a freaking landslide. Let me tell you: This ain’t over.”

Trump falsely claims that he won the election in Michigan when in fact he lost the state by more than 154,000 votes. Rudy Giuliani appeared before the Michigan House Oversight Committee Wednesday during which he spent more than three hours asking questions of witnesses who accompanied him to the hearing as a means to present what the Trump campaign deems to be evidence of fraud, but was largely conspiracy and misinformation.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/06/protesters-jocelyn-bensons-home-after-dark-oppose-certification/3850654001/

A Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco has unanimously called a halt to oil drilling off the Alaskan coast on Federal lands.  This environmentally catastrophic plan is  dead in the water.

The incoming Biden Administration will ensure that another attempt to destroy the environment by the soon to end Trump regime is buried PERMANENTLY.

San Francisco Chronicle 12.7.2020

The ruling is “a huge victory for polar bears and our climate,” said attorney Kristen Monsell of the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups challenging the Trump administration’s approval. “This project was a disaster waiting to happen.”

“In the face of a worsening climate crisis, the federal government should not be in the business of approving irresponsible offshore oil development in the Arctic,” said attorney Jeremy Lieb of Earthjustice. “The world cannot afford to develop new oil prospects anywhere, but especially in the Arctic where warming is already taking such a significant toll.”

The Trump administration’s approval of oil drilling off the northeast coast of Alaska, the first offshore drilling project to be entirely in federal waters, was rejected Monday by a federal appeals court, which said the government failed to assess a potential increase in greenhouse gas emissions or describe any plans to protect endangered polar bears.

The Interior Department granted approval in 2018 to Hilcorp Alaska for plans to extract oil from beneath the Beaufort Sea. The company called it the Liberty project and said it hoped to produce 120 million barrels of oil over 15 to 20 years.

The oil would be drilled from a newly constructed nine-acre gravel island, then pumped ashore underwater. Beaufort Bay is home to numerous endangered or threatened species, including six species of whales, three species of seals, sea otters and Pacific walruses, as well as polar bears, but federal officials said none would be threatened by the project.

The Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management also said the project would not increase global warming from greenhouse gases, because rejecting it would reduce oil supplies and encourage drilling elsewhere.

But in a suit by conservation groups, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Monday the government’s explanations were unconvincing.

The government offered only “noncommittal assurances” that were “too vague to enforce,” Judge Richard Paez said. He also said the assessment did not mention other potential harm to polar bears, short of extinction, or say what would be done to prevent it.

The project would increase global oil supplies and thus reduce prices, Judge  Paez said in the 3-0 ruling ordering officials to take a new look at the plans. “Once prices drop, foreign consumers will buy and consume more oil. … Emissions resulting from the foreign consumption of oil are surely a ‘reasonably foreseeable’ indirect effect of drilling at Liberty,” an effect that federal officials ignored, he said.

In the government’s assessment of potential environmental effects, the Fish and Wildlife Service said polar bears, a threatened species, lived in the area of the drilling project. The agency said the project was not likely to threaten their existence or harm their habitat, but failed to say what it would do to protect them, the court said.

Lawyers for the administration and Hilcorp Alaska did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The company could appeal the ruling even if the incoming Biden administration changes the government’s position in the case.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/Oil-drilling-off-Alaskan-coast-not-going-to-15782925.php#photo-20355184

It’s scary and boggles the mind that in “progressive” San Francisco the elected Board of Supervisors feels so threatened by a community newspaper, The Marina Times, that they are taking draconian action.

Given the dire state of affairs in San Francisco I would think these politicians have more on their plate to worry about. High level City officials are being felled by indictments. The economy is suffering. The Pandemic is laying waste to the fibre of this town.

What are these politicans thinking about? Their egos being ruffled by a local community journal.

This is the type of retribution one would expect from a totalitarian regime.

Or the soon to be exiled Donald Trump.

Public Comment 12.4.2020

• A revision to a contract the City maintains with community newspapers, which singled out a publication called the The Marina Times, raised alarm bells with First Amendment watchdogs

• A group of Supervisors voted to separate The Marina Times from the City’s advertiser list on the basis of what they deemed illegitimate reporting

• The action may run afoul of First Amendment law, which contends that governmental bodies must not engage in “viewpoint discrimination”

For First Amendment watchdogs, an item introduced this week at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors didn’t quite pass the smell test.

That was an amendment, introduced by Sup. Dean Preston on Dec. 1, to the routine process of approving a list of community newspapers in which the City places ads for public meetings. This process is enshrined in Proposition J, a 1994 ballot measure that designated the City as “purchaser” of these small advertising contracts, which are based on criteria like distribution and circulation.

This time, Preston singled out one paper, The Marina Times, and posited that the paper be segregated from the list and barred from receiving City advertising, which amounts to a few hundred dollars in monthly revenue.

The reason? Preston, who has received critical coverage in The Marina Times, said he considers their reporting illegitimate, likening the coverage to “disinformation” and “personal attacks,” also citing a tweet that he deemed threatening.

Sup. Hillary Ronen and others chimed in with their own personal grievances towards The Marina Times, a paper known for its critical coverage of City Hall — and in the eyes of some Twitter users, outspoken tweets by Editor-in-Chief Susan Dyer Reynolds. Ronen went so far as to label The Marina Times, which has circulated for 36 years, “a propaganda outfit that presents lies with facts,” though she didn’t cite any specifics.

Ultimately, only Supervisors Peskin, Stefani, Safai and Mandelman dissented on the proposal to single out The Marina Times from the circulation list, and the board will vote on whether to cut off funding to the paper on Dec. 8. Supervisors Preston, Ronen, Haney, Fewer, Walton, Yee and Mar approved the proposal.

“How many times have we seen [Trump] go after reporters because he doesn’t like what they say? We cannot allow these trends to continue…We must protect local journalism even when we don’t like what they say,” said Sup. Stefani in a heated dissent. “When I first heard about this proposed amendment, I literally could not believe it. I may not always agree with what is printed in The Marina Times. But that is not for me to decide.”

Reporters, yours truly included, were similarly incredulous at the conversation unfolding on Tuesday. Let’s call a spade a spade: Tuesday’s session was a display of retaliation towards a specific news source, with a group of politicians – to be sure, the very same politicians often scrutinized by The Marina Times – openly adjudicating the merits of that publication’s reporting.

“It’s troubling when government officials are making policy decisions based on their perception of whether a media outlet is real or valid journalism,” said David Snyder of First Amendment Coalition, a leading First Amendment law group. “That’s the kind of distinction government officials should not base their policy decisions on. Even if it’s not a violation of the First Amendment, it smacks of state-sponsored punishment of free expression.”

According to David Hudson, professor of law at Belmont University and a fellow at the Freedom Forum Institute, the Board of Supervisors’ actions on Tuesday may constitute “viewpoint discrimination” – a subset of First Amendment law which holds that the government may not discriminate by favoring one set of private speakers over another.

In one famous First Amendment case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), public school officials in Des Moines banned black armbands but allowed students to wear other symbols, such as Iron Crosses and political campaign buttons. In this case, the Supreme Court warned that this represented a singling out of a specific, anti-war, viewpoint.

“From what you describe, this sounds like blatant viewpoint discrimination – a governmental body discriminating against a newspaper based on its coverage,” said Hudson. “That is the essence of viewpoint discrimination, which is anathema to the First Amendment and a free society.”

In theory, Hudson said, the government could try to argue that the speech constitutes government expression, which carries its own framework for what is permissible.

But at minimum, Hudson added, the Board of Supervisors’s actions are “fishy.”

“I just think this is very problematic,” he said.

As for The Marina Times, Reynolds said that losing the City’s advertising wouldn’t be a death knell for the newspaper, but acknowledged that the lost advertising revenue would hurt the paper’s publisher. The advertising revenue amounts to about $3700 per year, according to Reynolds.

“He’s 73 and very well-respected, and this money means a lot for him,” she said, calling the Supervisors’ vote “vindictive.”

Reynolds defended The Marina Times’ reporting, pointing to a July 2020 article that was the first to identify the relationship between permit expediter Walter Wong, who pled guilty to fraud and money laundering charges, and former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission head Harlan Kelly, who was just charged with fraud as part of the ongoing federal corruption probe of San Francisco officials.

“I love San Francisco and I’m tired of the corruption, and I love the hardworking men and women who have long felt ignored,” Reynolds said. “I do my homework, and not once has any of [the Supervisors] asked me for a retraction at any time. If they don’t like what I say on Twitter, too bad.”

https://www.publiccommentsf.com/post/board-of-supervisors-amendment-to-newspaper-contracts-sets-a-troubling-precedent?fbclid=IwAR1Ns5JpXazUqpc9H78PnZmzPG2cBfrXKoLwVyoFluhj1m8sS9TywiUZb28

Who would have thought that the US House of Representatives would vote to legalize marijuana?

It is a momentous day in American history and is a total refutation of the War on Drug which began over 50 years ago.

Countless lives have been ruined and millions upon millions of dollars have been spent to arrest, prosecute and imprison tens of thousands of citizens.

The majority of whom are people of color whose only offense was to light up.

Excerpted from New York Times 12.4.2020

In the world of cinema Jean-Luc Godard is  acknowledged as one of the most accomplished and controversial film makers of all time. Generations of movie goers have watched, analyzed and talked about his work.

Jean Luc-Godard has influenced generations of movie makers. 

Sadly and predictably this movie great, Luc-Godard, has been largely ignored in America.

Despite his huge influence on modern cinema, Godard never received an Oscar nomination for any of his films. In 2010 he was awarded an Academy Honorary Award, but he did not attend the ceremony.

Excerpted from Deutsche Welle 12.3.2020

Jean-Luc Godard is recognized as one of the most influential filmmakers of the 20th century, but his political beliefs contributed to a difficult relationship with the film establishment.

Inspired by the May 68 protest movement that shook Paris and other European cities, Godard became increasingly politically outspoken. With his longtime friend Francois Truffaut, he led protests that shut down the 1968 Cannes Film Festival, to show solidarity with the students and workers.

Sympathy for the Devil (1968) – Luc-Godard center. Mick Jagger right

Godard’s revolutionary and Marxist rhetoric pervaded both his films and his public statements. He openly criticized the Vietnam War. Between 1968 and 1973, he and Jean-Pierre Gorin made a series of films with a strong Maoist message. The best-known of them is Tout Va Bien (Just Great, 1972), starring Yves Montand and Jane Fonda. But towards the end of 1970s, Godard lost faith in his Maoist ideals.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, a small group of French filmmakers turned cinema on its head. The Nouvelle Vague, or New Wave, broke all the established rules of filmmaking and rewrote them.

Franco-Swiss filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard was one of the leading lights of this new style of cinema. Critics rate him among the top 10 directors of all time, and he has had a direct influence on the likes of Quentin Tarantino, Bernardo Bertolucci, Steven Soderbergh and Martin Scorsese.

Born in Paris on December 3, 1930, Godard moved to Switzerland with his family at age 4. For much of his youth he lived on the Swiss side of Lake Geneva, where his father, a physician, ran a clinic. He returned to Paris after the war, to complete his baccalaureate.

Breathless (1960) – Jean Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg

He studied at the University of Paris and planned to pursue a career in anthropology. Although he never completed his degree, his interest in ethnology informed his filmmaking style, as he would use documentary film techniques to create what became called “cinema verité.”

His interest in films blossomed in 1950, when he joined the Ciné-Club du Quartier Latin. There he met Claude Chabrol and Francois Truffaut, who would also become influential members of the Nouvelle Vague.

Initially though, his interest in films was purely as a critic, writing for the publication Cahiers du Cinéma.

It wasn’t until 1954 that he was inspired to make his first short film, while working as a laborer on the Grand Dixence dam in Switzerland. With a borrowed camera, he shot Opération Béton (1954; Operation Concrete). The construction company bought the film and used it for publicity purposes.

A keen admirer of German playwright Bertolt Brecht, Godard wanted to translate Brecht’s concept of “epic theater” into the language of film. Over the next few years, Godard, Truffaut and others worked to produce a series of short films. They developed a new take on filmmaking, using lightweight equipment, natural lighting, long takes, sometimes with improvised dialogue. The established rules of continuity fell to the cutting room floor.

Then in 1960, Godard made his first feature film, A Bout de Souffle, (Breathless). The film, produced by Francois Truffaut and starring Jean Seberg and Jean-Paul Belmondo, was the turning point in his career.

A Bout de Souffle heavily referenced American film noir of the 1940s and 50s, but also combined the Nouvelle Vague’s groundbreaking new techniques. The story of a car-thief who shoots a policeman and is then turned over by his girlfriend used hand-held camera work, incidental lighting, actor monologues to camera and jump-cuts.

It was the start of his most successful and influential period of filmmaking.

1960 to 67 was a period of intense activity for Godard, in which he made the dozen films which form his Nouvelle Vague canon.

The most successful was the 1963 feature Le Mépris (Contempt), starring Brigitte Bardot. It was the most expensive film he made, and his only orthodox film, though it took Nouvelle Vague techniques and solidified them as the accepted way of modern cinema.

Contempt (1963) – Brigitte Bardot

After Pierrot le Fou (1965), his second film starring Belmondo, he was asked to direct Bonnie and Clyde, but he knocked back the offer, saying he distrusted Hollywood.

Godard’s political views had already appeared in films such as Le petit soldat, about the Algerian War of Independence. But in his final film in the Nouvelle Vague genre, Week-End, he delivered a scathing attack against consumerism and bourgeois society. Then in the closing credits, instead of simply “Fin,” the screen lit up with “Le Fin du Cinéma,” or “The End of Cinema.”

https://www.dw.com/en/nouvelle-vague-filmmaker-jean-luc-godard-at-90/a-55793767